scottb613

Falcon 50 - STOL Performance

Recommended Posts

Hi Folks,

Just curious on the STOL like performance on this aircraft - with flaps and brakes out - we seem capable of flying some insanely steep approaches for a jet... I remember someone stating it had excellent performance during the development process - is this what they were talking about ?

Regards,
Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Flaps and speed brakes out at the same time?  That's a no-go with most jets, especially during landing, including the Falcon 50.

In the AFM  section ABNORMAL procedures you will see that the approach speed needs to be increased by 20kts and the landing field lenght increases by 800ft. 

The LIMITATIONS section says:  No airbrake extension below 500ft AGL.

Edited by FDEdev
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Flaps and speed brakes out at the same time?  That's a no-go with most jets, especially for landing, including the Falcon 50.

In the AFM  section ABNORMAL procedures you will see that the approach speed needs to be increased by 20kts and the landing field lenght increases by 800ft. 

Hi FDE,

Hah - oops - LOL - ok - keep that in mind - somebody send me to Flight Safety... Even with just flaps - this is a get into - get out of short fields with ease - bird - no ?

Thanks for the tip...

Regards,
Scott 

Share this post


Link to post

The problem with most airplanes isn't getting into an airport but getting out!  I really hope that Flysimware will provide the necessary performance data.

The Falcon 50 isn't exactly slow on approach. Even at minimum weight the approach speed is 104kts, that's only 2kts slower than an A319!

What is really special about the Falcon 50 is its ability to operate from unpaved surfaces (if the weight is below 33000lbs) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Dassault is kind of noted for making somewhat 'hot' aeroplanes, not always the wisest of traits on occasion, but it is something which makes the Falcon jets somewhat on the sprightly side of things even if its makers might not recommend flying them in such a way on a regular basis.

Dassault were well known of course, for making the legendary Mirage, but unfortunately for them, they took a lot of the philosophy of what goes into a making a great military aircraft and put it in their Mystere airliner, resulting in it not being a commercial success, even if it was an airliner which could (and did) regularly drop at over 6,000 fpm from the TOD thanks to its fighter-like aerodynamics and fuel capacity lol. So it's not surprising to find some of that philosophy slipping into the Falcon range as well.

Here's a cool video of a Falcon 8X showing off some of that Dassault groovy handling...

 

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Folks,

Thanks for the additional info - and great video - seems they improved the lines a bit with the newer models - that's one graceful looking bird...

Regards,
Scott

Share this post


Link to post

We are going to have some fun with this bird....thank you FSW!!!!

Share this post


Link to post

The Falcon 50 and the Falcon family by far has amazing performance. It is not unusual to fly a 50 or 900B under Part 91 rules into 4000 foot runways. The 50 is also certified to land on unimproved surfaces as well.  

Share this post


Link to post

The STOL performance, certainly on landing, is very impressive but am I correct that there seems to be no way to arm the spoilers so that they automatically deploy on touchdown?

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, scianoir said:

The STOL performance, certainly on landing, is very impressive but am I correct that there seems to be no way to arm the spoilers so that they automatically deploy on touchdown?

Bill

The real Falcon 50 does not have auto spoilers. On touchdown, the pilot has to reach down and pull the air brake handle to the second notch manually.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, RyInTheSky said:

The Falcon 50 and the Falcon family by far has amazing performance. It is not unusual to fly a 50 or 900B under Part 91 rules into 4000 foot runways. The 50 is also certified to land on unimproved surfaces as well.  

4000ft isn't exactly amazing since you need to reduce the MTOM below 36000lbs if you want to get out of a 4000ft strip again (calculated without any reserves).

If we start to use reduced weights for comparison, then e.g. an A319 is amazing with a landing distance of less than 2700ft.

 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Chock said:

Dassault is kind of noted for making somewhat 'hot' aeroplanes, not always the wisest of traits on occasion, but it is something which makes the Falcon jets somewhat on the sprightly side of things even if its makers might not recommend flying them in such a way on a regular basis.

 

 

While it's definitely a nice nippy jet, I don't find it hot at all on approach and it seems happy to dump altitude by the bucket load when I put out one notch of flaps with the wheels down. So much so that I find myself retracting flaps and adding power in order to make the runway.

That said, I don't normally do much jet flying, so a lot of that could be bad planning on my part, but I haven't yet found "coming in hot" to be a problem. 🙂

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, Holdit said:

While it's definitely a nice nippy jet, I don't find it hot at all on approach and it seems happy to dump altitude by the bucket load when I put out one notch of flaps with the wheels down. So much so that I find myself retracting flaps and adding power in order to make the runway.

Don't know how at what IAS you are descending, but the first stage of flaps extends only the slats, and since VFE slats  is only 200kias this configuration shouldn't result in excessive drag.

Edited by FDEdev

Share this post


Link to post

This 50 seems to need a fair bit of power on when coming in with big flap settings in order to keep the speed on and not undershoot or land heavy, but it does seem to stop pretty quickly once you've got it down.

Having said that, I stuffed up the fuel load on one flight and completely ran out of gas about 40 miles from my destination, but I was able to get it onto my destination runway anyway with a bit of staying high and some S curves leading to a steep approach in and a bit of a 'bottom of the rollercoaster flare' coming over the numbers. Fortunately that sort of gliding energy management malarkey is a thing I've done a lot of in real life with sailplanes, so I found it wasn't too difficult at all.

It's really fun to fly and to anyone who is considering getting it, I'd say go for it, it's well on par with their other stuff even in this early release state.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

The real Falcon 50 does not have auto spoilers. On touchdown, the pilot has to reach down and pull the air brake handle to the second notch manually.

I wasn’t aware that the real Falcon wasn’t fitted with auto spoilers - thanks for that information Jim!

Bill

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Chock said:

It's really fun to fly and to anyone who is considering getting it, I'd say go for it, it's well on par with their other stuff even in this early release state.

Yep, I love it. On the back of their Falcon, their 441 is now on my to-buy list. After the Vertx DA-62.

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, JRBarrett said:

The real Falcon 50 does not have auto spoilers. On touchdown, the pilot has to reach down and pull the air brake handle to the second notch manually.

Hi Jim,

Clarification please - so when are the brakes put in position 1 ? As per another thread - brakes plus flaps = no no ?

Thanks...

Regards,

Scott

Share this post


Link to post

Pos 1 or 2 to increase the ROD. Stow latest at 500ft AGL, Pos 2 at or after touchdown.

Edited by FDEdev
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Hi FDEdev,

 Gotcha - Thanks...

Regards,

Scott

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Don't know how at what IAS you are descending, but the first stage of flaps extends only the slats, and since VFE slats  is only 200kias this configuration shouldn't result in excessive drag.

Caveat...I'm still in seeing-what-it-can do mode and not actually following the checklists. When the runway is in sight I'm usually trying to keep it around 160-180 KIAS until I'm on short final, and then bring it down to about 110. If at 160 KIAS, I drop the first notch of actual flaps (i.e. not slats), and then the gear, I find that altitude tends to drop off very quickly. 

These are just observations, by the way, not criticisms. I can definitely live with a non-slippery jet when landing. :smile:

 

Edited by Holdit

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Chock said:

they took a lot of the philosophy of what goes into a making a great military aircraft and put it in their Mystere airliner, resulting in it not being a commercial success, even if it was an airliner which could (and did) regularly drop at over 6,000 fpm from the TOD thanks to its fighter-like aerodynamics and fuel capacity

A bit off topic but did you mean the Mercure airliner (the Mystere was a fighter bomber)? It was a great bit of kit tbf, reliable, economical and advanced system but the woeful fuel capacity and range killed it. I don't know how it was priced, maybe it was expensive too?

 

Most aircraft do not permit the use of wing spoilers during final approach or at low altitude, as it increases the stall speed of the aircraft (some forbid any use of spoilers in conjunction with flaps) and forgetting to retract them for a go around could have fatal consequences (see AAL965). Other drag mechanisms are not normally so restricted, such as the fuselage mounted air brakes fitted to the BAe 146. The E190SR deploys spoilers during steep approach but this is managed by the computer and you only get limited extension of some panels.

Edited by ckyliu

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Holdit said:

While it's definitely a nice nippy jet, I don't find it hot at all on approach and it seems happy to dump altitude by the bucket load when I put out one notch of flaps with the wheels down. So much so that I find myself retracting flaps and adding power in order to make the runway.

That said, I don't normally do much jet flying, so a lot of that could be bad planning on my part, but I haven't yet found "coming in hot" to be a problem. 🙂

 

 

Adding flaps and gear will require a simultaneous application of increased power to keep rate of descent constant and airspeed from decaying excessively. The 50 has a very low VREF (for a jet) when landing lightly loaded with full flaps, which is one of the reasons it has such good short field performance.

The need to manage power manually in all flight phases can take some getting used to if your previous sim experience has been with an aircraft equipped with auto throttles.

For me, it is a bit easier because I been doing a lot of flying in the Aerosoft CRJ over the past year, which also requires manual power management in cruise, descent and approach.

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

The 50 has a very low VREF (for a jet) when landing lightly loaded with full flaps, which is one of the reasons it has such good short field performance.

Concerning low jet VREF just a few numbers for comparison:   

Falcon 50 104kts @   21000lbs 

727-200    104kts @ 100000lbs  

C550           84kts @     9000lbs

Edited by FDEdev

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Concerning low jet VREF just a few numbers for comparison:   

Falcon 50 104kts @   21000lbs 

727-200    104kts @ 100000lbs  

C550           84kts @     9000lbs

Yes, the 727 was an astonishing feat of engineering for its time with very low approach and landing speeds for an aircraft of its size and weight. Boeing designed it to serve regional airports with relatively short runways.

Especially interesting considering that the design of all the high-lift devices that make that possible was done by engineers working with slide rules for the most part. (That and a lot of wind tunnel testing).

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ckyliu said:

A bit off topic but did you mean the Mercure airliner (the Mystere was a fighter bomber)? It was a great bit of kit tbf, reliable, economical and advanced system but the woeful fuel capacity and range killed it. I don't know how it was priced, maybe it was expensive too?

Yup, Mercure, typo on my part lol. Very short ranged and basically beaten by the 1-11, DC-9 and 737, all of which had better range.

Edited by Chock

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now